A boy severely wounded during fighting between Syrian rebels and the Syrian Army. AP FILE Should the U.S. intervene in Syria? Express your opinion at Cincinnati.com/Opinion.

After more than a decade's worth of war in the Middle East, Americans are weary of the region and wary of additional military action. But the question of whether the United States should intervene in Syria is important for lots of reasons. We've gathered the thoughts of the people representing our region in Washington, who will have to decide the issue in the coming days. And a Syrian man who lives in West Chester Township explains the issue from his point of view. § We've also compiled five reasons why we should care about what happens in Syria, five reasons why we might want to intervene, five reasons why we might not want to intervene, and what you can do to make your voice heard. Please read, then let us and your elected representatives know what you think.

WHY WE SHOULD CARE

1. Chemical weapons kill.

For about a century, the world has condemned the use of chemical weapons, and the ban on their use has mostly held, which is pretty remarkable considering all the bloodshed and wars of the 20th century. One exception was Saddam Hussein's use of them in the 1980s.

People ask whether chemical weapons are any worse than more conventional weapons. But there's been broad agreement that they are because, once released, they kill indiscriminately. Conflicts that use chemical weapons aren't just between combatants; they will almost always kill large numbers of innocent civilians.

2. Assad's powerful allies.

This isn't just about Syria; it's about Syria's supporters, Russia and Iran. Both support Syrian President Bashar Assad, so anything we do about Syria is also, by extension, bound to affect our relationship with them.

3. Who's in the band of rebels?

As opposition to Assad grew, the original protesters and rebel groups were joined by fighters from groups associated with al-Qaida and other Islamist groups. If Syria descends into chaos, al-Qaida could have another country to use as a base.

4. Syria's strategic location.

This is also about Syria's neighbors, which include American allies and friends such as Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Some neighboring countries are being overwhelmed by refugees, which is creating humanitarian crises and could destabilize their governments. Others are nervous that, if a country is allowed to use chemical weapons on its own people without punishment, it could turn those weapons on neighboring countries next time.

5. The cost, human and otherwise.

Although Syria doesn't produce much oil, if the conflict there spreads it could threaten important pipelines and routes used in the global oil trade, which could affect energy prices.

Military action would cost U.S. taxpayers money; while the proposed military action is limited, it's helpful to remember the war in Iraq ended up costing roughly $2 trillion.

WHY WE SHOULD INTERVENE

1. Avert a bigger crisis.

By not responding, we risk emboldening Assad and his supporters, especially Iran. The world did nothing when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurdish population in Iraq. A few years later Hussein invaded Kuwait, which cost much more, in both lives and financial costs, than earlier action would have. As unpopular as intervention might be right now, it could be easier than in a few years, when an even bigger crisis could arise.

2. Global leadership at stake.

It would be ideal for the United Nations to lead the charge against Assad. But that would require the approval of the U.N. Security Council, and Russia and China would stop any attempt to win that approval because they both support Assad's government. If the U.S. is willing to hold the Syrian government accountable, it will reinforce our role as a global leader willing to defend democratic principles.

3. Force negotiations.

Military strikes could prompt Syria, and especially Syria's supporters, to encourage a negotiated political settlement. Assad has avoided any talk of a settlement since the conflict began in 2011. Some observers are hopeful that military action could shift the balance of power enough that all sides would be willing to talk.

4. The moral imperative.

Although many people now regret U.S. involvement in Iraq, there have been other international crises where the world has failed to act and regretted it. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda is a vivid example. In just over three months, as the world watched, more than 500,000 Rwandans were killed. Some place the death toll as high as 1 million, or 20 percent of the country. Six years later the UN acknowledged that it had failed Rwanda.

5. Stop the spread of chemical weapons.

If it's true that Syria has used chemical weapons, there's a risk they will give those weapons to other states or groups that could use them against our allies. The best way to prevent that would be to destroy any facility we believe is involved in manufacturing chemical weapons.

WHY WE SHOULD NOT INTERVENE

1. No Plan B.

U.S. officials say they won't send any troops into Syria and they'll depend on limited, targeted strikes designed to dissuade Assad from using more chemical weapons. But if that doesn't work, or large numbers of Syrian civilians are killed, the U.S. could be pulled into a greater role.

2. Risk of wider war.

Iran could respond to U.S. attacks by encouraging Syria to back down. But it could also become more involved and challenge the U.S. more directly. Any of Syria's neighbors could jump in, from Israel to Iraq to Lebanon to Turkey, with no way to predict what direction it could take.

3. What's next?

The U.S. doesn't aim to get rid of Assad. But if his government falls, the next Syrian government could be worse. What happened in Egypt, where a free election led to a president from the Muslim Brotherhood, who was then thrown out by the Egyptian Army, could be mild compared to what could happen in Syria.

4. Against the law.

Syria has not attacked the U.S., so many experts believe a U.S. attack would be illegal. A country is only authorized to attack another country in self-defense; any other actions require the approval of the UN or a regional security organization like NATO. It's true that the UN would be unlikely to approve one, but some believe we should at least put the issue before them.

5. Limited impact.

There are plenty of doomsday scenarios, but there's also a good chance that military strikes would have little or no effect on the Syrian conflict. If the U.S. intervenes by hitting some key Syrian targets, but the war drags on, will the status quo be considered a victory or a failure? The war many end sooner if we let it resolve itself without interfering.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

Most Commented

More Headlines

Most Viewed

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

EDITORIAL: Why Syria matters

After more than a decade's worth of war in the Middle East, Americans are weary of the region and wary of additional military action. But the question of whether the United States should intervene in